>As
>I have said before, it might be nice to do a simple job of naming data
>models. Then we can say: "The default data model for SOAP includes,
>records (structs), multi-structs, and arrays, along with the
>simple types
>from XML Schema Datatypes. RPC calls and responses can be represented
>using any encoding for the SOAP default data model." Then in
>chapter 5,
>you describe the default data model, and say "to promote
>interoperability,
>SOAP provides a standard encoding for the default data model (which is
>essentially the one we've had in chapter 5 all along).
I like the separation of the datamodel from the serialization!
Regarding the choice between A and B, the deciding factor between the
two seems to me to be whether the RPC convention has a requirement to
the underlying datamodel of supporting rooted graphs or not. I would say
that the SOAP data model does support rooted graphs and that the current
section 5 serialization uses the "root" attribute for this purpose but
other serializations are possible. Does that match your understanding?
On the matter of naming a datamodel, while it certainly is possible to
have multiple serializations of a data model, do you also expect that we
are likely to have multiple data models for a single serialization? In
other words, do you think a given value for the encodingStyle attribute
will unambiguously identify not only the serialization but also the data
model, or do you think the two are separate?
Henrik